Case example – B: Sanctions caused by Work Programme

The claimant is a lone parent on JSA with a part-time job and with a child at school.

She was sanctioned twice (late 2015 and early 2016) for non-attendance at the Work Programme, in spite of explaining to the provider that the appointments they gave her clashed with her work hours and/or with times when she needed to collect her child from school.

The claimant was also being required to attend an office in another town (50 minutes away by bus), although the WP provider apparently had an office in her home town that would have been more convenient for her.

The claimant stated that when she raised the problem with the WP adviser, the response was “I could get your money stopped.”

Derbyshire Welfare Rights requested Mandatory Reconsiderations of the relevant decisions in January 2016, and followed up the contact in February 2016 and again in May, as there had been no reply.

A new decision was made in September 2016, overturning the sanctions. In the meantime the claimant had faced action by bailiffs for Council Tax arrears, as payments for these came direct from her JSA, and when JSA stopped this triggered further recovery action

In November 2016, the claimant was still waiting to have her lost benefit paid back to her.
 

Case example  - C: Multiple sanctions and lengthy delays

The claimant sought help from Derbyshire Welfare Rights in November 2015, having been sanctioned, possibly more than once.  A request was made for full details of all sanctions, which was acknowledged a month later.
 

Further sanctions were imposed from February 2016.

The relevant details were not provided, but after follow-up requests, these were provided in May 2016.

Between February and November 2015, the claimant had been referred for sanctions on between ten and fifteen occasions, and had been sanctioned on eight of these. Sanctions prior to February 2015 were also referred to but not detailed.

The cause of the sanction in each case appears to have been referral by the Work Programme provider for sanctions following non-attendance/lateness etc.

The papers showed details of:

a. the claimant giving written evidence of having missed an appointment because she was seeing the Police as a witness to an incident, but her absence was still listed as ‘unauthorised’

b. the claimant arriving late for an appointment having been with her partner who was taken to hospital.  The claimant arrived 15 minutes late for her WP appointment but the mitigating circumstances appear not to have been taken in to account

c. the claimant not receiving any notice of appointments with the provider

d. the claimant having difficulty getting through to the provider by telephone when needing to tell them of problems attending

e. the claimant suffering from the effects of anxiety, which appear not to have been taken in to account

f.  that the claimant reported that her WP adviser ‘makes me feel small as he talks/shouts to me which makes me feel insecure and there’s other people in there. I don’t want everyone knowing my business’

In June 2016, the Welfare Rights Service asked for all sanctions to be looked at again, given the apparent poor communication from the WP provider, unaddressed health problems and the apparent breakdown of trust with the WP provider.

At the time of writing (November 2016) the matter of the sanctions is still unresolved. The claimant states that she is no longer subject to sanctions and that she has not been sanctioned since coming off the Work Programme.
 

Case example – E : Open-ended ESA sanction lasting nearly three years  
 

The claimant is of working age but is unable to work owing to bi-polar disorder.

He was in need of someone to manage his financial affairs but did not receive this help until late in 2016 when Derbyshire County Council became his corporate appointee.

It became apparent that he had been subject to an open-ended sanction in December 2013 for failing to attend a Work-Focused Interview, and his income had been reduced by £73 per week.

A few days after the sanction was imposed, the claimant had been placed in the Support Group for ESA. It is reasonably clear that he should always have been in the group, as he was not capable of work-related activity.

The sanction, however, was still not lifted and £73 a week was still taken from his income, as DWP still insisted that the claimant should attend a Work-Focused Interview before they would lift it.  ( for reference: someone in the Support Group does not have to attend work Focused Interviews, but DWP insisted that this action should be completed). 

On 1/9/16 Derbyshire Welfare Rights Service requested a Mandatory Reconsideration of the sanction decision. This was followed up on 22/11/16, and the DWP conceded that they had received the request but had not acted upon it.

At the end of November 2016, the claimant was awarded £11,000 of ESA arrears (the £73 a week that had been taken away by way of sanction).

It is unclear how long the DWP would have allowed this situation to continue had he not come to the attention of the Council and therefore received advocacy and support. 
 

Case example – F: possible multiple ESA sanctions, factually incorrect letters, and no reply from DWP

The claimant did not attend a ‘work-related’ activity meeting, and his ESA was reduced to £29 a week.

On 22/4/16, having been contacted by the claimant’s support worker, Derbyshire Welfare Rights Service requested Mandatory Reconsideration on the grounds that:

The claimant had good cause for not attending any required activities as he had to change his address as a matter of urgency and the DWP has been writing to the wrong address – and adding that he appeared not to have been told that he was entitled to claim a hardship payment.

Additionally, the point was raised that although some notification was sent out, the letter the claimant received saying that his payment would be cut to £29 did not mention sanctions, ascribing the change to ‘a change in savings’. There had been no such change. His support worker queried this and was told that the letter was a ‘generic’ one.

The Welfare Rights Service letter to the DWP stated that “It is surely not acceptable practice to send a ‘generic’ letter when such a serious matter as a £73.10 weekly reduction in income has been imposed via a sanction. The claimant is entitled to know the full decision on his claim with relevant facts given and an explanation of his right to seek Mandatory Reconsideration.”

A copy of the sanction decision and the ESA Action plan were requested by the adviser.

The Work Programme provider later gave the support worker a list of dates on which the claimant had attended or failed to attend appointments. It became clear that he had missed many appointments and that multiple sanctions may have been applied.

In May 2016 further evidence was sent to DWP to argue that the claimant’s health was suffering through being required to undertake work-related activity (and that he should be in the ESA Support Group) and that he was only capable of attending work-related activities when his support worker took him to them. There was also evidence that he was easily led, and had not attended some WP sessions as a ‘friend’ had told him that he did not have to do so.

A copy of the Action Plan was requested once again, along with an explanation of why the claimant had been mandated to the Work Programme.

No reply was received from DWP and so a complaint was made in August 2016. A response in September 2016 advised that the matter of the sanctions had been referred to the Jobcentre, who would respond directly.

At the time of writing (November 2016) no further contact has been received and request for contact in ten working days has been made to the DWP by the Welfare Rights Service.
 

Case example – G: Sanctioned for working

The claimant was doing part-time hours, with his wages topped up with UC.

The claimant’s employer asked him to do an extra day’s work; the claimant was aware that this clashed with an appointment at the Jobcentre and so phoned to ask permission to change the appointment and do the day’s work. This was agreed and he was told that ‘work comes first’.

The claimant was sanctioned for non-attendance: he requested a Mandatory Reconsideration and provided a letter from his employer confirming that he had been asked to work.

The MR was refused (in the form of a Mandatory Reconsideration Notice), a week after being requested.

Having no money, the claimant had to live off the ‘rent’ element of his UC, thus incurring rent arrears and receiving a Notice of Seeking Possession. UC hardship payments were finally made, but these are repayable.

The Welfare Rights Service took up the case as an appeal and pointed out that the whole point of UC was to allow claimants to work, and that Jobcentre appointments should not be given priority over the opportunity to work.

An appeal was lodged but was lapsed by DWP making a new decision (in the form of a new Mandatory Reconsideration Notice) – the sanction was dropped.

The sanction was imposed in April 2016, and it took until August 2016 for it to be removed with all the associated stress and anxiety for the claimant, and un-necessary work handling for the DWP. 
 

Case example – H: Sanctioned for attending a job interview

The claimant attended a 2-day interview for a job, advising the Jobcentre in advance. She was sanctioned for 91 days because this meant that she did not attend her ‘Job Club’ appointment.

The claimant did not receive a written decision, but was advised of the sanction verbally.

The Welfare Rights Service contacted DWP in February 2016 and requested details of the sanction, arguing that ‘If [claimant] missed a Jobcentre appointment because of attending an interview, the sanction is surely nonsensical, as on the face of it the decision prioritises the Jobclub over an actual opportunity to get a job’

There was no reply.

In April 2016, the claimant was telephoned by DWP and told ‘there is no sanction’. No written confirmation was received until May 2016 after being requested by the Welfare Rights Service, (Mandatory Reconsideration Notice dated 2/3/16) and a copy of the original sanction decision letter was also provided.

This is yet another instance of an inappropriate decision, and a lack of correct process being followed.

Case example – I : Sanctioned in first week of claim and given conflicting tasks

The claimant was single and of no fixed abode. She claimed UC in January 2016, and was sanctioned twice within the first week of her claim.

1/a ‘low’ sanction of 8 days for missing the first of three consecutive appointments, having made a mistake about the date (she attended the next day)

2/ a ‘medium’ 28-day sanction for not doing sufficient job-search – the claimant stated that she had been given conflicting tasks by two different DWP Work Coaches, and was told by one Work Coach that the other Coach would ‘understand’ if she did not do what he asked of her. Instead, she was sanctioned for doing insufficient work-search.

The claimant’s situation was made worse as hardship payments were initially refused to her as she had not done any job-search in the 7 days prior to her application. She was, however, off sick after a car-crash and not able to do any job-search, a matter of which the Jobcentre was aware. She was also told she had to obtain a letter from her father (with whom she did not live and did not get on) refusing to help her financially. This demand conflicted with DWP guidance on UC hardship.[4]

Both decisions were challenged in January 2016. In March two LT54s (internal DWP memos) were received by the Welfare Rights Service, apparently upholding both decisions. Appeals were lodged against both sanctions decisions using the LT54s, as Mandatory Reconsideration Notices had not been issued.

The ‘low’ sanction appeal was taken by DWP as a Mandatory Reconsideration request as an MR Notice had apparently not been issued in the matter. An MRN relating to this decision has still not been issued to date, in spite of further requests from the Welfare Rights Service.

The ‘medium’ sanction proceeded to appeal. The appeal was successful, with the Tribunal Judge registering irritation that no party to the hearing could produce any details of what precise tasks the claimant had been asked to do, and querying the meaning of un-glossed jargon in the DWP submission that even the Presenting Officer did not understand.

The Judge noted that “[T]his was right at the outset of her claim for an entirely new benefit. I accept that there was some confusion about which adviser she should report to, and what she was supposed to be doing in that first week.’